The Observer view on Brexit: it’s our political system, not just MPs, that is failing us

The People’s Vote march in October 2018 brought hundreds of thousands of people on to the streets of London.
Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Barcroft Images

Brexit has prompted a recurring nightmare among an increasingly incredulous population: our very own Groundhog Day. Two weeks after the EU granted us an 11th-hour extension to prevent us crashing out without a deal, we are back in exactly the same position. The only thing standing between us and next Friday’s cliff edge is the hope the EU gifts us another extension. Meanwhile, the political turmoil engulfing the country worsens, the two main parties increasingly consumed by division and disarray and the political leadership we so desperately need to avert crisis as elusive as ever.

It’s hard to believe that the Westminster model of democracy was one prized by constitutional theorists for the stability it purportedly delivers. As the stakes get higher, our political system has proved less and less capable of delivering a resolution to the gridlock that has infected Westminster.

Labour has to choose between backing a referendum or striking a compromise on a softer Brexit

Brexit has been a story of the favouring of party management over the national interest. From the very beginning, Theresa May’s approach to Brexit – from her premature decision to trigger article 50 to her red lines on freedom of movement and the customs union – has been driven not by a strategy to unite the country in the wake of a divisive referendum but to keep her Brexit ultras on side. Only now it has become clear that there are MPs in her party so fanatically dogmatic that they would rather hold out for no deal than vote for her deal has she opened compromise talks with Labour. But Labour emerged from the talks on Friday complaining that no changes to the political declaration were on offer, suggesting that this move may have been more about trying to lay blame for any further delay on the opposition.

Labour’s strategy has been no less determined by party interest. Jeremy Corbyn has kept a position of barely credible ambiguity for as long as possible to avoid alienating any of its voters. Labour has maintained the charade that it could deliver a Brexit deal that delivers all the benefits of EU membership with none of costs. And Labour has failed to provide any leadership support for a confirmatory referendum on any Brexit deal, with the shadow cabinet split on the issue.

Time is running out for Labour to decide once and for all whether it will properly swing its weight behind a referendum. Thanks to the mess the Tories are in, Corbyn is in a position of power, if he only chooses to use it. He could tell May that Labour MPs will back her withdrawal agreement only if she is prepared to put it to a confirmatory referendum. There is every chance that this would generate a cross-party majority for a referendum.

Parliament should lead a national conversation with the public to shape negotiations with the EU in the coming years

It would be the right thing for Labour to do in principle. The terms of our exit are now clear in a way they simply weren’t when Britain voted to leave the EU in June 2016. Voters were made misleading promises during that campaign. It would be unthinkable to leave without putting the terms of our exit back to voters for ratification.

But it is also the right thing for Labour to do electorally. It can no longer credibly sit on the fence. Three-quarters of Labour voters think Britain was wrong to vote to leave the EU. With no failsafe way of triggering a general election, Labour has to choose between backing a referendum or striking a compromise on a softer Brexit. But the latter is fraught with danger: there are no guarantees that May can make that would be binding on any successor, were there to be a general election during the negotiations about our future relationship with the EU. Labour could end up being blamed for facilitating a hard Brexit.

If the EU does grant us a long extension, the biggest risk is that it simply gets wasted and we find ourselves here again for a third time in a few months. If recent weeks have shown anything, it’s that not even the most perilous cliff edge is enough to force a deal. A long extension could see both parties slide backwards from compromise. The Conservative party looks likely to select a hard Brexiter to succeed May, one who might set tougher red lines around which it is harder, not easier, to generate a parliamentary consensus. Labour might simply return to a position of constructive ambiguity.

It is imperative that any long extension is put to good use. MPs must rally behind holding a confirmatory referendum giving a choice between any agreed withdrawal agreement versus the status quo. If the public votes to accept the withdrawal agreement, that still leaves a big question mark over our future relationship with Europe. Parliament should lead a national conversation with the public, using citizens’ assemblies, to shape negotiations with the EU in the coming years. It is far too important to leave to the dominant faction of a single political party.

The chaos over Brexit will likely have done irreparable damage to public confidence in our political system. Our two-party, majoritarian political system has struggled to represent the preferences of a more pluralistic electorate, divided on issues such as Brexit that cross the left-right spectrum. The current political crisis is not just the product of an utter vacuum of contemporary political leadership but of the strong incentives in our political system for leaders to try to hold their parties together above all else. MPs must use the coming weeks to find a way out of this ruinous stasis. But we may one day look back on this as the time that the whole political system, not just our leaders, was exposed as wanting.